You are on page 1of 8

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 5-4: Composites and Hybrids

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON DIAGONAL SHEAR CRACKS OF CONCRETE BEAMS WITHOUT STIRRUPS LONGITUDINALLY REINFORCED WITH GFRP BARS

Rendy Thamrin Abdul Aziz Abdul David Yeoh Eng Samad Chuan

Noor Azlina Abdul Hamid

Imohamed Ali

Abstract
An experimental study on diagonal shear cracks of concrete beams without stirrups was carried out. A total of twenty four reinforced concrete beams, consisted of twelve beams reinforced with GFRP bars and twelve beams reinforced with conventional steel bars, were tested up to failure. Test variables in this study were: (1) concrete compressive strength; (2) longitudinal reinforcement ratio; and (3) shear span-effective depth ratio. Beam capacities, slope of the diagonal shear cracks, strains at the maximum concrete compression fiber and selected position of longitudinal reinforcement were observed during the test. The diagonal shear cracking loads obtained from the test were compared to that calculated using empirical equations available in ACI code and Eurocode 2. The test results showed that shear strength of beams reinforced with GFRP bars was lower than that of the beams with conventional steel bars. It was found that the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement significantly influences the failure type and crack pattern in the shear span zone. In addition, the tensile strain of longitudinal reinforcement at the support considerably increases after the occurrence of diagonal cracks. Keywords: Concrete beams, GFRP bars, diagonal shear crack, tensile strain

Introduction

The occurrence of diagonal shear crack in reinforced concrete beam indicates not only a precondition to shear failure but also influences the distribution of tensile force along the

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 5-4: Composites and Hybrids

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

longitudinal reinforcement. Previous test results have experimentally proven that a certain quantity of tensile force is shifted to the support after the occurrence of diagonal shear crack (Thamrin, R., and Kaku, T 2005). Even though some equations expressed the relationship between diagonal shear cracking load and tensile force at the support have been proposed (Thamrin, R., and Kaku, T 2007), there are still few studies evaluating the experimental behavior of tension force at the support due to the effect of diagonal shear crack. The ratio of longitudinal reinforcement is one of the main factors affecting the formation of diagonal shear cracking load (Zararis, P. D. 2003). During the occurrence of diagonal crack the transverse force developed in longitudinal reinforcements, known as dowel force, contributes to the shear resistance in reinforced concrete beam. However, not many research reports the influence of longitudinal reinforcement ratio on the slope of diagonal crack in the shear span zone. This study considered not only the occurrence of the diagonal shear cracking load and behavior of the tension force at the support but also the slope of the diagonal shear crack in the shear span zone. Test variables used in this study were: (1) concrete compressive strength; (2) longitudinal reinforcement ratio; and (3) shear span-effective depth ratio. In addition, diagonal shear cracking loads obtained from the test were compared to that value calculated using empirical equations available in ACI code and Eurocode 2.

Materials and Method

A total of twenty four concrete beams without stirrups, consisted of twelve beams reinforced with GFRP bars and twelve beams reinforced with conventional steel bars, were tested to failure (Tab. 1). The beams were simply supported and loaded with two-point loads. Beam dimensions were 130 mm wide and 230 mm deep (Fig. 1). Two types of shear span-effective depth ratio were obtained by using two shear span length, Ls, i.e. 450 mm and 600 mm. In order to avoid bond failure, the beams were designed with sufficient additional bond length, La, at the end of the beams. In the case of beam with 450 mm shear span length, La was 250 mm, and for beam with 600 mm, the shear span length, La was 200 mm.

Fig. 1

Beam detail, loading position, and beam cross section

GFRP bars used were deformed and sand coated type with 9 mm diameter. The tensile strength, fu, and modulus of elasticity, Ef, of GFRP bars were 770 MPa and 51.5 GPa, respectively. Deformed steel bars with 10mm diameter, yield strength, fy = 746 MPa and modulus of elasticity, Es = 209 GPa were used for concrete beam reinforced with steel bars. Two types of concrete compressive strength, fc, used in this study were 13 MPa and 33.5 MPa.

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 5-4: Composites and Hybrids

All beams were instrumented with strain gauges at positions illustrated by marks in Fig. 1, to measure strain. Three positions of strain gauges attached on longitudinal reinforcement denoted as M, SS and S as shown in Fig. 1. Strain gauges were also attached on the top of compression fibre at midspan of the beam. In addition, the deflections at midspan and at loading points were measured using three displacement transducers.
Tab. 1 Beams properties, theoretical diagonal cracking load and test results
Longitudinal reinforcement As db (%) (mm) ( mm2 ) 0.30 78.5 157.1 0.60 235.6 0.91 0.30 78.5 157.1 0.60 235.6 0.91 10.0 0.30 78.5 157.1 0.60 235.6 0.91 0.30 78.5 157.1 0.60 235.6 0.91 0.30 63.6 127.2 0.60 190.9 0.91 0.30 63.6 127.2 0.60 190.9 0.91 9.0 0.30 63.6 127.2 0.60 190.9 0.91 63.6 0.30 127.2 0.60 190.9 0.91 Diagonal ACI crack load EC 2 440.1R-03 (Exp.) Vcr Vcr Vcr (kN) 9.8 12.4 14.2 13.5 17.0 19.5 9.8 12.4 14.2 13.5 17.0 19.5 9.8 12.4 14.2 13.5 17.0 19.5 9.8 12.4 14.2 13.5 17.0 19.5 (kN) 2.4 4.9 7.3 1.5 3.0 4.6 2.4 4.9 7.3 1.5 3.0 4.6 (kN) 19.8 23.2 22.8 27.7 13.3 19.5 18.3 18.8 17.0 17.2 19.6 24.4 11.4 14.6 13.6 19.0 Ultimate load (Exp.) Vult (kN) 23.9 42.5 44.9 27.1 48.9 53.9 21.0 27.4 29.2 19.5 35.7 43.9 22.5 27.7 25.0 17.9 39.4 36.3 16.7 18.6 19.9 12.7 18.8 23.6 Crack Slope of distance Type crack in from of shear support failure span zone (mm) 83.0 55.0 46.0 75.0 60.0 57.0 82.0 49.0 40.0 80.0 45.0 45.0 87.0 56.0 48.0 64.0 68.0 42.0 80.0 48.0 35.0 57.0 45.0 45.0 327.0 245.0 249.0 365.0 297.0 265.0 393.0 359.0 195.0 493.0 145.0 302.0 340.0 274.0 272.0 296.0 270.0 322.0 344.0 200.0 330.0 447.0 330.0 340.0 FF SF SF FF SF SF FF SF SF FF SF SF FF SF SF FF SF SF FF SF SF FF SF SF

Beams

a /d

fc' (MPa)

ACI Vcr (kN) 15.6 15.6 15.6 25.1 25.1 25.1 15.6 15.6 15.6 25.1 25.1 25.1 15.6 15.6 15.6 25.1 25.1 25.1 15.6 15.6 15.6 25.1 25.1 25.1

BSL-01 BSL-02 BSL-03 BSN-04 BSN-05 BSN-06 BSL-07 BSL-08 BSL-09 BSN-10 BSN-11 BSN-12 BGL-01 BGL-02 BGL-03 BGN-04 BGN-05 BGN-06 BGL-07 BGL-08 BGL-09 BGN-10 BGN-11 BGN-12

13.0 2.3 33.5

13.0 3.0 33.5

13.0 2.3 33.5

13.0 3.0 33.5

Note: FF = flexural failure; SF = shear failure Tab. 2 Concrete shear strength equations from references, code and design recommendation

ACI 318-05 (2005)1 Eurocode 2 (1992)1


2

vcr =

1 6

f c'

(1)

vcr = 0.12k (100 w f c )1/ 3

(2)

ACI 440.1 R-03 (2003)


1

f Ef f c' vcr = 90 1 f c' 6



2

(3)

Equations adopted from code for steel-reinforced members; Code for FRP-reinforced members

Results and Discussion

Failure modes and capacities of the beams are listed in Tab. 1. In this study, the experimental diagonal crack loads tabulated in Tab. 1 were observed visually and described as the load when the flexural crack in the shear span zone became inclined. Furthermore, in order to estimate theoretically the concrete shear contribution, the selected existing concrete shear strength equations

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 5-4: Composites and Hybrids

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

given in Tab. 2 were used. Eq. (1) is the basic expressions for concrete contribution to shear resistance without size effect of steel-reinforced concrete members adopted from ACI 318-05 code (2005). Eq. (2) is the expression adopted from Eurocode 2 (1992) for concrete contribution to shear of steel-reinforced concrete members and Eq. (3) is the expression adopted from ACI 440.1 R-03 (2003) for concrete contribution to shear resistance of FRP-reinforced concrete members. Two types of failure mode were observed from the test (Tab. 1). The first type of failure is Flexural Failure (FF) indicated by rupture of longitudinal reinforcement, which was occurred in beams reinforced with GFRP bars. In addition, flexural cracks were dominantly occurred in loading point zone. This type of failure was due to a low longitudinal reinforcement ratio. In these beams, diagonal shear crack was not significant in the shear span zone. The second type of failure is Shear Failure (SF), which was consisted of two categories. The first one is, diagonal shear-tension failure indicated by sudden formation of diagonal crack in the shear span zone immediately before the beam collapsed. The second one is shear-compression failure dominated by diagonal shear crack developed gradually in the shear span zone before collapse. Failure mode and crack pattern of the tested beams are shown in Fig. 3. Load deflection curves of the tested beams are shown in Fig. 2. It is shown that as the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement increases and as the ratio of shear span-effective depth decreases, beam capacity increases. Fig. 2 also shows that beam capacity slightly increases as the concrete compressive strength increases. It is revealed that ratio of longitudinal reinforcement influences the type of failure and stiffness of the beams after the occurrence of the first flexural crack. In addition, in the case of beams reinforced with GFRP bars, stiffness of the beams drastically decreases even though the beams have higher longitudinal reinforcement. This was due to low modulus elasticity of GFRP bars.
Shear Force, V (kN) 60
Shear Force, V (kN)

60
Shear Force, V (kN)

60 50 40 30 10 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 8 16 24 32 BSL-09 BSL-08
Shear Force, V (kN)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 2 4

BSL-03

50 40 30 10 0

BSN-06 BSN-05

BSN-12 BSN-11 BSN-10

BSL-02

BSL-01 20

BSN-04 20

BSL-07

10

Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

(a) Beams reinforced with steel bars


Shear Force, V (kN) 40
Shear Force, V (kN)

40 BGL-03 BGL-02 30

Shear Force, V (kN)

30 20 10 0 0 5

BGN-05 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 8 16 24 32 BGL-09 BGL-08

Shear Force, V (kN)

BGN-06

40

40 30 20 BGN-12 BGN-11 BGN-10

BGL-01 20 10 0 BGN-04

BGL-07 10 0 40 0 5

10 15 20 25 30
Deflection (mm)

10 15 20 25 30
Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

(b) Beams reinforced with GFRP bars Fig. 2 Load deflection curve of the beams

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 5-4: Composites and Hybrids

a/ d

Beams reinforced with steel bars

Beams reinforced with GFRP bars

2.3

3.0

Fig. 3

Failure mode and crack pattern of tested beams

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 5-4: Composites and Hybrids

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

Based on the observation of failure mode and crack pattern of tested beams, it was found that the longitudinal reinforcement ratio significantly influences the crack pattern and slope of crack in the shear span zone. Flexural cracks indicated by vertical cracks developed around loading points are more dominant in beams with the lowest longitudinal reinforcement ratio ( = 0.3). On the other hand, diagonal shear cracks were clearly observed for beams with higher longitudinal reinforcement ratio ( = 0.6 and 0.91). In general, Fig. 3 concludes that slope of diagonal crack decreases as the longitudinal reinforcement ratio increases.
Experimental, V cr (kN) Experimental, V cr (kN)
a/d = 2.3 a/d = 3.0 a/d = 2.3 a/d = 3.0

24 18 12 6 0 0

24 18 12 6 0

Experimental, V cr (kN)

30

30

30 24 18 12 6 0 0 6 12 18 24 30
a/d = 2.3 a/d = 3.0

a/d = 2.3 a/d = 3.0 a/d = 2.3 a/d = 3.0

12

18

24

30

12

18

24

30

ACI, Vcr (kN)

Eurocode 2, Vcr (kN)

ACI 440.1R-03, Vcr (kN)

(a)
Fig. 4

(b)

(c)

Calculated concrete shear strength versus experimental diagonal shear cracking loads

Fig. 4 compares the calculated concrete shear strength with the observed values. Here, the triangle represents beams reinforced with steel bars and the circle represents for beams reinforced with GFRP bars. It is shown from the figure that Eq. 1 overestimates the diagonal shear cracking loads in the case of beams with a/d = 3 and higher concrete compressive strength. However, since no size effect was considered in Eq. 1, the expectation of this comparison is to contribute additional data related to the use of this equation. Eq. 2 conservatively predicts the diagonal shear cracking loads of concrete beams reinforced with steel and some beams with GFRP bars, while Eq. 3 clearly underestimate the diagonal shear cracking loads for all beams reinforced with GFRP bars. In Fig. 5, tension forces of longitudinal reinforcement are plotted versus shear forces to observe the influence of shear span length on tension force at the support. It is shown that the tension force at the middle of the beam and at the middle of shear span significantly increases after the occurrence first flexural crack. With further loading, the tensile force at the support considerably increases after the occurrence of diagonal cracks. But in the case of beams with a/d = 3 and reinforced with GFRP bars there were no tension force shifted to the support (Fig. 5(g) and (h)) due to low capacity of the beams. This figure also shows that with the increase of shear span length, the tension force at the support decreases. This fact reveals that the capacity of the beams decreases with the increase of shear span length. In the case of beams reinforced with steel bars, it was observed that a small amount of tension force was developed at the support after the yielding of longitudinal reinforcement. In addition, depending on the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement, tension force at the support increases as the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement increases.

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 5-4: Composites and Hybrids

Tension Force, T (kN)

Tension Force, T (kN)

Tension Force, T (kN)

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40

M SS S

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 60 0

140 SS 120 S 100 80 60 40 20 0 60 0 20

Tension Force, T (kN)

M SS S

20

40

40

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 60 0

SS S

20

40

60

Shear Force, V (kN)

(a) BSL-03
Tension Force, T (kN) Tension Force, T (kN) 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 S SS M 100 80 60 40 20 0 30 0

(b) BSN-06
Tension Force, T (kN) 100 M 80 60

(c) BSL-09
Tension Force, T (kN) 100 80 60 40 20 0 30 0

(d) BSN-12

M SS

SS S 40 20 0 40 0 10

M SS S 20

S 20 40

20

Shear Force, V (kN)

(e) BGL-03
Fig. 5

(f) BGN-06

(g) BGL-09

(h) BGN-12

Tension force of longitudinal reinforcement versus shear force curves of selected beams

Conclusions

A total of twenty four concrete beams, consisted of twelve beams reinforced with GFRP bars and twelve beams reinforced with steel bars, were tested to observe the diagonal shear crack and the tension force of longitudinal reinforcement. The following conclusions are noted from the results: Shear capacity of the tested beams is significantly influenced by the amount of shear span length and longitudinal reinforcement ratio. In this study, concrete compressive strength slightly influences the shear capacity of the beams. The ratio of longitudinal reinforcement also influences the type of failure and stiffness of the beams after the occurrence of the first flexural crack. The crack patterns as well as the slope of diagonal crack in the shear span zone were significantly influenced by the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement. In general, the slope of diagonal crack decreases as the longitudinal reinforcement ratio increases. A simple equation to calculate concrete contribution to shear adopted from ACI 318-05 overestimates the diagonal shear cracking loads in the case of beams with a/d = 3 and higher concrete compressive strength. The equation adopted from Eurocode 2 conservatively predicts the diagonal shear cracking loads of concrete beams reinforced with steel and some of beams with GFRP bars, while ACI 440.1 R-03 equation clearly underestimate the diagonal shear cracking loads for all beams reinforced with GFRP bars. The tensile force of longitudinal reinforcement at the support considerably increased after the occurrence of diagonals cracks and with increasing of shear span length the tension force at the support decreases. This study was financially supported by University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia through Short Research Grant (VOT 0565). Ready mix concrete and GFRP bars were supplied by Hanson Concrete Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia and Aslan Pacific, respectively. All support is thankfully acknowledged.

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011 Session 5-4: Composites and Hybrids

Proceedings ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

References
ACI 318-05/318R-05, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05). American Concrete Institute, 2005. [2] ACI 440.1R-03, Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich, 2003. [3] MOSLEY, B., BUNGEY, J., HULSE, R., Reinfoced Concrete Design to Eurocode 2. 6th ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. [4] PARK, R., PAULAY, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1975. [5] THAMRIN, R., KAKU, T., Tension Force Model of Longitudinal Reinforcement at the Support of RC Beam with Hanging Region. Proc. of FIB Symposium Keep Concrete Attractive, Budapest, pp. 613-618, 2005. [6] THAMRIN, R., KAKU, T., Bond Strength of CFRP Rods in Simply Supported RC Beam with Hanging Region. Proc. of JCI Annual Convention, Nagoya, Vol. 27, pp. 733-738, 2005. [7] THAMRIN, R., KAKU, T., Development Length Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Beam with CFRP Bars. Proc. of Int. Symp. on Bond Behaviour of FRP in Structures, Hongkong, pp. 393 399, 2005. [8] THAMRIN, R., KAKU, T., Bond Behavior of CFRP Bars in Simply Supported Reinforced Concrete Beam with Hanging Region. J. Compos. Construct., ASCE, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 129137, 2007. [9] ZARARIS, P. D., Shear Strength and Minimum Shear Reinforcement of Reinforced Concrete Slender Beams. ACI Struct. J., 100: 203-214, 2003. [10] ZSUTTY, T. C., Beam Shear Strength Prediction by Analysis of Existing Data. ACI Struct. J., 65: 942-951, 1968. [11] YOST, J. R., GROSS, S. P., DINEHART, D. W., Shear Strength of Normal Strength Concrete Beams Reinforced with Deformed GFRP Bars. J. Compos. Construct. ASCE., 5: 263-275, 2001. [1]

Dr. Rendy Thamrin


Univ. Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia Faculty of Civil Engineering Dept. of Structural and Material Eng. 86400, Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia +607-453-7370 +607-453-6070 rendy@uthm.edu.my

Prof. Abdul Aziz Abdul Samad


Univ. Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia Faculty of Civil Engineering Dept. of Structural and Material Eng. 86400, Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia +607-453-7300 +607-453-6070 aziz@uthm.edu.my